Discuss October 2012

discuss@lists.centos.org

162 participants
168 discussions

Setting PS1 for ordinary users
by James B. Byrne 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

CentOS-6 When I login as root I see this prompt: [root@vhost04 ~]# When I login as a non-priviledged user I see this instead: sh-4.1$ .bashrc and .bash_profile have identical contents in /root and /home/user. What causes the difference? Why? How does one change the default so that all normal users get a [userid@hostname pwd]$ prompt? I have loked in/etc/profile.d and /etc/bashrc and I cannot see what condition is triggering the different behaviour. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3

11 14

nfs4 idmapd.conf user mapping
by Paul B Schroeder 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

On my CentOS 6.3 machine, in /etc/idmapd.conf I've updated the "[Mapping]" section of the config file: Nobody-User = paulbsch Nobody-Group = paulbsch But the mapping is not working. Files still show up as being owned by "nobody". On my Fedora 14 machine, with the exact same changes to /etc/idmapd.conf, the mapping works perfectly and the files show up as being owned by "paulbsch". On the CentOS 6.3 machine: nfs-utils-1.2.3-26.el6.x86_64 nfs-utils-lib-1.1.5-4.el6.x86_64 On the F14 machine: nfs-utils-1.2.3-6.fc14.x86_64 nfs-utils-lib-1.1.5-3.fc14.x86_64 Would anybody have any idea why this is does not work on CentOS as it does in F14? Thanks...Paul...

2 2

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 92, Issue 7
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CEBA-2012:1353 CentOS 6 wget FASTTRACK Update (Johnny Hughes) 2. CEBA-2012:1355 CentOS 6 mlocate FASTTRACK Update (Johnny Hughes) 3. CEBA-2012:1354 CentOS 6 ftp FASTTRACK Update (Johnny Hughes) 4. CEBA-2012:1352 CentOS 6 gnome-desktop FASTTRACK Update (Johnny Hughes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:38:00 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2012:1353 CentOS 6 wget FASTTRACK Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20121010123800.GA28865(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2012:1353 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-1353.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 5c560e6c3d63822154457cba442f130a33a7cce3cb9ff9c2ef5c43292df10625 wget-1.12-1.8.el6.i686.rpm x86_64: f7fbb18ff1ba0fd4dd673bc94dfbd79d67b8fa769fa16bb5293f80472c07d4f1 wget-1.12-1.8.el6.x86_64.rpm Source: 375b96e13603429fd3cc5e6cadcdba6faab0a299c6d778dff244d7738900fe33 wget-1.12-1.8.el6.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:38:31 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2012:1355 CentOS 6 mlocate FASTTRACK Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20121010123831.GA28941(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2012:1355 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-1355.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 7354cb6599a1e82fcd99ffa03561ed84f5b31e05250357cf610ed38af37c804e mlocate-0.22.2-4.el6.i686.rpm x86_64: 65bca9a2746d3f128bc0d85d3d83cd8226a137705288b376802092545da0bf24 mlocate-0.22.2-4.el6.x86_64.rpm Source: 871eb92333c29d99d891bb69f088012007e98ffbe42f622293ac6d484bbf04fc mlocate-0.22.2-4.el6.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:38:52 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2012:1354 CentOS 6 ftp FASTTRACK Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20121010123852.GA29016(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2012:1354 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-1354.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 9ba49b1d5d339f5fb14a600eba050a137a2c0de3cad07775a9ddf981fbdb432f ftp-0.17-52.el6.i686.rpm x86_64: 4ee40cfcd72be5ec52c6caf47e40c21890b6c621ed25677ab77568d01b67250a ftp-0.17-52.el6.x86_64.rpm Source: 00154c68be9022300e0b3e6da65b7dce74a9d428be89809da6f134f462960b34 ftp-0.17-52.el6.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:39:20 +0000 From: Johnny Hughes <johnny(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2012:1352 CentOS 6 gnome-desktop FASTTRACK Update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20121010123920.GA29096(a)chakra.karan.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2012:1352 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-1352.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) i386: 24235a0e9eb0c2e71878c701dda001a95262aeeff3317dc8c00da7043691145f gnome-desktop-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.i686.rpm a8c87ce077159e279ebae7b1a6fa50caea191b32749d88a834e43717a247ff30 gnome-desktop-devel-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.i686.rpm x86_64: 24235a0e9eb0c2e71878c701dda001a95262aeeff3317dc8c00da7043691145f gnome-desktop-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.i686.rpm 4bfbcfb352aa66be8d8dfbec7096e3f96e026ec9aee35aff6b3231d238003d52 gnome-desktop-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm a8c87ce077159e279ebae7b1a6fa50caea191b32749d88a834e43717a247ff30 gnome-desktop-devel-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.i686.rpm 65d2d9dcb76ce6bfd6cbe7b769ef578fee46b11edf6a4f0acb4ea3605553e415 gnome-desktop-devel-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm Source: 8351afeb684ea380a5e4b025ad4fcbe97ddd3ffadc2fc862a84321bc16bdd831 gnome-desktop-2.28.2-11.el6.centos.src.rpm -- Johnny Hughes CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ } irc: hughesjr, #centos(a)irc.freenode.net ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 92, Issue 7 **********************************************

1 0

Mount options for NFS
by lhecking＠users.sourceforge.net 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

We're experiencing problems with some legacy software when it comes to NFS access. Even though files are visible in a terminal and can be accessed with standard shell tools and vi, this software typically complains that the files are empty or not syntactically correct. The NFS filesystems in question are 8TB+ XFS filesystems mounted with "delaylog,inode64,logbsize=32k,logdev=/dev/sda2,nobarrier,quota" options, and I suspect that inode64 may have to do with the observed behaviour. The server is running CentOS 6.3 + all patches. The clients exhibiting the problem are running CentOS 5.4 and CentOS 5.8 x84_64. Interesting enough, the application (which is available in 32-bit only) appears to work fine on RHEL3 32-bit; we have no CentOS5 32-bit systems to test. I was wondering if anyone has seen such behaviour and whether it can be corrected using nfs mount options. The only other solution I have at the moment is reformatting to ext4, i.e. ugly.

3 8

CentOs - howto log Firefox EM
by Johan Vermeulen 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Dear All, how can I create a Firefox log? My actual problem is this: I have 17 stations connecting to a Drupal database, that I don't have admin access to. Some of these stations are OpenSuse , some are Centos6.3 and two are Centos5.8. One of this Centos5.8 install frequently has this EM when connecting to this database using Firefox: "There was a problem with an async httprequest response" When I google this, it seems Ajax / Java related. The Centos5.8 stations are standard installs, no modifications have been made to java or anything. I'm now trying to find out if it's server related of client-side. greetings, j. IT-medewerker Caw De Kempen johan.vermeulen(a)cawdekempen.be Opensource Software is the future.

1 0

Network issue with multiple uplinks
by Stefano Buelow 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hello everyone. I've stumbled upon a strange networking issue with multiple interfaces on CentOS 5. The network setup is just like the diagram in http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html It looks like linux is not routing correctly outgoing packets on interfaces different from the one of the default gateway, but instead broadcasts an ARP request on the link, looking for the destination host, which doesn't make any sense as the remote host is far away. I suspect there's a bug in the kernel in the routing decision algorithm, as the issue is absent in kernel releases up to 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5 (CentOS 5.5), while I've tracked it down at least from 2.6.18-308.1.1.el5 release onwards (CentOS 5.8). I'm not sure in which release inbetween appeared first. I'll try to explain with an example. Let's say that my IF1 is eth1 with 100.10.10.1/24 and gateway 100.10.10.254 and IF2 is eth2 99.10.11.1/24 with gateway 99.10.11.254. Inside network is eth0 with 192.168.0.1/24. My main routing table looks something like # route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 99.10.11.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 100.10.10.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 100.10.10.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Then I've setup two additional routing tables with iproute2 and linked to the main rule list like this # cat >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables << EOF 10 provider1 20 provider2 EOF # ip route add 100.10.10.0/24 dev eth1 table provider1 # ip route add default via 100.10.10.254 dev eth1 table provider1 # ip rule add from 100.10.10.0/24 table provider1 # ip route add 99.10.11.0/24 dev eth2 table provider2 # ip route add default via 99.10.11.254 dev eth2 table provider2 # ip rule add from 99.10.11.0/24 table provider2 So the result is the following: # ip rule list 0: from all lookup 255 32764: from 99.10.11.0/24 lookup provider2 32765: from 100.10.10.0/24 lookup provider1 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default # ip route list table provider1 100.10.10.0/24 dev eth1 scope link default via 100.10.10.254 dev eth1 # ip route list table provider2 99.10.11.0/24 dev eth2 scope link default via 99.10.11.254 dev eth2 Now the issue. With kernel 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5, if I try two different ping forcing outgoing interface everything looks good: # ping -c 3 -I eth1 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 100.10.10.1 eth1: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=16.9 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=19.4 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=20.7 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.378/16.796/17.289/0.390 ms and # ping -c 3 -I eth2 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 99.10.11.1 eth2: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=24.9 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=25.3 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=24.5 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 16.378/16.796/17.289/0.390 ms If I repeat the ping, but with a newer kernel, let's say 2.6.18-308.1.1.el5, the result is the following: # ping -c 3 -I eth1 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 100.10.10.1 eth1: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=36.8 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=36.8 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=35.5 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 35.542/36.433/36.887/0.630 ms # ping -c 3 -I eth2 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 99.10.11.1 eth2: 56(84) bytes of data. >From 99.10.11.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable >From 99.10.11.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable >From 99.10.11.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 2001ms , pipe 3 I was puzzled by this behaviour, so I traced network traffic with tcpdump, and the output is the following: # tcpdump -n -i eth2 src or dst 8.8.8.8 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 10:03:34.951676 arp who-has 8.8.8.8 tell 99.10.11.1 10:03:35.951719 arp who-has 8.8.8.8 tell 99.10.11.1 10:03:36.951662 arp who-has 8.8.8.8 tell 99.10.11.1 3 packets captured 3 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel It looks like the routing algorithm discards advanced routing, forgetting about the second default gateway on provider2 table. Adding a second default route to the main routing table seems to resolve the issue, but it wasn't necessary before and I'm not sure is a correct solution. # route add default gw 100.10.11.254 metric 100 # route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 99.10.11.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 100.10.10.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 99.10.11.254 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth2 0.0.0.0 100.10.10.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Any comments ? -- Stefano Buelow <stefano.buelow [at] logx.it> -- Il messaggio e' stato analizzato alla ricerca di virus o contenuti pericolosi da MailScanner, ed e' risultato non infetto.

1 0

Samsung Galaxy 3 and Centos
by Frank Cox 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

My cell phone provider just sent me a letter stating that my 3 year contract is up and they will give me a Samsung Galaxy 3 if I will sign a new contract. I'm wondering how well (or if) that phone will work with Centos 6. My existing Samsung phone (can't remember the model number) doesn't integrate well or at all with Centos; whenever I plug it into the computer it finds the phone but apparently can't actually communicate with it so I can't transfer data back and forth without having to remove the memory card from the phone and copy information directly to and from that. Which is a nuisance. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!

8 7

Re: [CentOS] X/Display resolution configuration
by Mike Watson 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

According to xorg.0.log, it's seeing the EDID fine. All the info was there. mw -- "Lose not thy airspeed, lest the ground rises up and smites thee." -- William Kershner http://crucis-court.com http://www.crucis.net/1632search On 10/09/2012 04:25 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On >> Behalf Of Lamar Owen >> Sent: den 8 oktober 2012 20:57 >> To: CentOS mailing list >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] X/Display resolution configuration >> >> Double check your cable. I ran into a widescreen situation a whle back > where >> one cable didn't work, but the cable that came with the monitor did. >> The EDID value comes from the monitor itself, and the cable must be able > to >> support that in order for the automatic resolution code to properly figure > out the >> resolution. >> >> In the case I mention, even manually setting the resolution in xorg.conf >> didn't work, since the EDID was mangled by the cable. > I see a lot of EDID-errors when booting up CentOS6, this could be due to a > faulty cable, even though it seems to work fine with other OS:es like > Windows and CentOS5? > > Is CentOS6 more "picky" with this EDID as compared to e.g. CentOS5? > > -- > /Sorin > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >

1 0

X/Display resolution configuration
by Mike Watson 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

I've installed CentOS 6.3 on a new system. I've a nagging problem that I'm trying to fix---the screen resolution changes. I've a flat screen monitor that has 1600x900 capability. However when I logout and then log back in the resolution changes to 1280x1024. When I looked at the xorg.conf.d directory it was empty---both in /etc and in /usr/share. Where is xorg.conf and it's monitor section now? BTW, I'm use KDE. mw -- -- "Lose not thy airspeed, lest the ground rises up and smites thee." -- William Kershner http://crucis-court.com http://www.crucis.net/1632search

9 16

v4l
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Hi, folks. Ever since we brought some of our servers up to 6.x, where the gspca module comes with the kernel, instead of us building it, we've been seeing problems. One system gives very strange loops - someone walks through, then repeat a few times, then the next motion, etc. The current problem is that one camera went out on a different server (it's 6.2, and I'm hoping to bring it up to 6.3 shortly, when the users give me a maintenance window). I replaced it with another camera - these are inexpensive webcams, USB 1.0 or 1.1. I started up motion a couple of times, and it finally started. This was a few weeks ago; then, late last week or over the weekend, it went out again, giving only a black screen. Under 5.x, where we were building gspca from source a couple-three years old, it worked fine. Anyone have ideas as to what I might try? mark

2 1

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss October 2012